Forum:The WIP problem
Key Participants: NOBODY Santiago González Martín Takeshi64 SQhi Random-storykeeper __TOC__ SQhi brought this problem up on Turnament's talk page. For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, the problem is that, when a new game is released, someone will create the game's page, but place a WIP on it. From here on, the editability of the page is based on the person taking Template:WIP off. Thus, the placer could leave for some time, and leave the page with the WIP on it, with people wanting to add the content unable to. Does anyone have any suggestions that could solve this problem? -- 16:52, September 27, 2012 (UTC) :I told my suggestion the last time it was discussed, and I say it again: The articles about new/upcoming components cannot have a WIP untill "x" days after the release/announcement of the game/subject. Then, everyone can edit the page, an when an edit coflict is cuased, the editor only has to copypaste what he/she written to the other text chart. I suggested that, but I don't know why the discussion stopped. I don't see anything wrong with this solution, but if anyone does, we can modify this suggestion. 19:31, September 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah. I thought Santi already discussed this.... :: 21:47, September 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Really? Oh... I thought the situation remained unsolved, as SQhi noted how something similar to what I had mentioned had already happened. Should 3 days be a good substitution for x? -- 22:13, September 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::SQhi here with an objective PoV(SQhi does not edit articles on new games). I think 3 days would be too long for newly created games. Many members would be clamoring to edit the newly sprouted articles. 22:58, September 27, 2012 (UTC) :::::Well, all the users could edit, but the WIP template could not be placed. Then, all the users have a time (let's say 3 days) to edit the page about the newly released game, and if someone wants to keep the page for himself, he would have to wait a few days to do it. Do you understand it? Maybe I didn't explained it correctly before. 10:49, September 29, 2012 (UTC) Reset Indent I like your last comment's idea. So, if anyone is fine with the above comment's idea, may I close this forum topic and place it where it belongs (on which page do I place this new rule?)? -- 17:50, September 29, 2012 (UTC) : I like Santi's idea but we can't pass it yet. This would result is plenty of edit conflicts. Unluckily unlike chat we can't tell real-time if a member is editing the article. Perhaps WIP one hours should be permitted. Within 3 days of release of the game, such a WIP can only be used every six hours. Perhaps we could even have a queue on the talk page. OR we could teach everyone how to recover whatever they have added during an edit conflict. SQhi•'''(talk)Ruby 18:10, September 29, 2012 (UTC) ::One hour seems to long. How about 10/20 minute intervals? -- 19:12, September 29, 2012 (UTC) ::::We have to be pragmatic though, how much work can one get one in 10/20 minute intevals if one is writing an article and not merely editing it. How about 30 minutes? SQhi•'(talk)Ruby 19:39, September 29, 2012 (UTC) :::::Depends on how long the periods of having a WIP up are that we're trying to protect against. I'd say that when I put a WIP up on a new page, it's to prevent edit conflicts and I take it down a few minutes later. I'd suggest 15 minutes, because they can always put it back up later after they're done. We need to find a way to monitor this... It'd be hard unless people watch the edit logs carefully. 19:45, September 29, 2012 (UTC) Reset Indent The edit conflicts would continue happening, because the people would wait for the exact moment when the users removes the WIP. I think that it isn't hard to learn/teach what the users have to do when an edit conflict happens. 19:51, September 29, 2012 (UTC) :You have got to be kidding me. That is going to be too difficult to monitor, and will most likely lead to a lot of users gaming the whole concept of a WIP template. We can reduce the amount of editing on newly released game pages by protecting them temporarily. By protecting, I mean restricting the editing to only registered contributors for a week or so. :To get the point across, it's much better to either allow them on a newly released game page or not. If we have these "few minute WIPs", it starts getting difficult to determine who placed a WIP and when they should remove it. I'm okay with saying "No WIPs on a page about a newly released game until three days after the game's release" and at the same time, restricting editing to only registered contributors. If an edit conflict happens, well, unfortunately, it happens. :Also, I think it's best to ask this: why NOBODY decided to place a WIP upon creating Turnament. As far as I'm concerned, he's the one who recognized this issue in the first place and brought it up in this blog post. 20:02, September 29, 2012 (UTC) ::About the WIP on Turnament... well... I don't know. I guess I thought people would create it ahead of me, but then, I could have just replaced the other person's content with my content if I got edit conflicted. The main problem with WIPs on newly released games is because, when someone creates the page, they tend to not finish the general layout of game page's for some time. The main layout of the page is really what is causing this problem with the WIP, as for people who look up the game on the Nitrome Wiki, the game page will likely be under construction. ::If we could somehow get the main layout of a newly released game's page preloaded, then someone can simply pick that if they create the page. I've found that some time after a game page is released, edits to the game page are less frequent. The main problem is really when a page is first created. -- 20:35, September 29, 2012 (UTC) :::The funny thing is that when I made that above comment, I had an edit conflict with Santi. I noticed that the editor works properly now, so it also remembers your changes if you click Publish and another user edited before. If you added content that the previous user did not add before, then it is as easy as a copy/paste to the top editor. :::With that in mind, I propose saying no to the placing of a WIP until ''at least three days after the game's release. Edit conflicts, which seem to be the main concern here, are inevitable when it comes to editing high traffic pages, and users should be aware of that before editing. Placing a WIP template might not change any of that. You can still have a chance of getting an edit conflict because another user might be adding a WIP template at the same time you do, or decide to ignore the WIP policy and edit the page anyways. It doesn't guarantee "safe editing". 07:21, September 30, 2012 (UTC) :::::The second alternative is better. My only reserve is how Wikia tends to screw up the editor (frequently) and the bottom box doesn't reflect what you have just added. A quick alt+left tends to solve the probl;em though.SQhi•'(talk)Ruby 10:17, September 30, 2012 (UTC) Reset Indent I think RSK is right. If you're going to make a large edit on a page, wait for a point where no one is editing, don't add a WIP. WIPs are meant for longer periods of editing when a user is making major changes to the format of the page and doesn't want to be interrupted. It isn't made to protect against edit conflicts. Users also might add a WIP because they want to add some info to start the page off with. I agree with the three days rule, because we won't be able to monitor it in minutes or hours accurately. 14:14, September 30, 2012 (UTC) :I think we can start voting. Support = you agree with the rule of the WIP. Oppose = you don't agree with that rule. 15:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC) :So, for this vote/support thing, will support support the idea of ''not having a WIP on a page if a new game until 3 days/72 hours has past? -- 18:37, September 30, 2012 (UTC) ::I think we should wait a little bit before. About the game page layout, I can make a button on the edit page so if anyone starts a game page, a dafault layout will appear like MediaWiki:Welcome-user-page. What do you think about that? 19:19, September 30, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, that will work... but only if the people who create the page know how to use it. Seeing as mostly people who know how to use templates create game articles here, I support using the game page layout preload button. -- 20:23, September 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::This discussion has run for almost a week now. I find this community tends to lose interest in a forum discussion after a few days. Let's focus on the issue of the WIP template itself and instead, make a decision now about the use of the WIP templates on newly released game pages. How about voicing your opinion about this: '''A WIP cannot be placed on an article about a newly released game until three days after its release. Go! 01:56, October 4, 2012 (UTC) (indent reset) Yes, that would be the more viable option. I suggest we extend this to every new feature released such as Nitrome Touchy, icebreaker updates and blog posts. SQhi•'''(talk)Ruby 04:02, October 4, 2012 (UTC) :I agree! -- 14:52, October 4, 2012 (UTC) ::The three day timer should be set for both when the game releases, and if Nitrome releases lots of information about an upcoming game. Under the current rules, people could place WIPs on Icebreaker iOS right after it was revealed, since it wasn't released yet. 23:54, October 4, 2012 (UTC) :::GO!!! I shall push this forum topic through the bureaucracy. Please express support/reservations about the 3 day WIP rule and suggest the types of new releases which fall under this rule. (this who have done so, thank you) SQhi•'(talk)Ruby 04:21, October 7, 2012 (UTC) Seeking consensus Second resolution. NOBODY pointed out it is hard work starting an article. A template shall be created to aid in the construction of newly-created pages. Anyone for Santi's idea? Let's go. Really. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 04:21, October 7, 2012 (UTC) :Based on Santi's point, I'd support, but I'd like to know what template you have in mind for "aiding in the construction of newly-created pages". 06:27, October 7, 2012 (UTC) ::About the past comments, I support the idea of "protecting of WIPs" the pages about newly released games, recently announced games/updates/other for a time period of 3 days. Also, I'll explain more about the new game page layout: It can be a page layout that appears if you choose it when loading a page, or it can be a edit toolbar button (a default game article text appears when you click on a button). The first idea is better, I think. 12:13, October 7, 2012 (UTC) :::I don't think I stated "creating a game page is hard", I just said it may be hard for other people. Anyway, I'm voting for the "No WIP on new game page's for X days". -- 13:02, October 7, 2012 (UTC) ::::Are you talking about using the layout builder or using a createbox tag, which, upon clicking the "Create" button, allows the user to create an article with the preloaded text? For an edit toolbar button, do you mean edit buttons on the editor in source mode? ::::Anyways, the "game page layout" might be going a little off topic. Let's stick to this "voting" about WIP templates first, then discuss game page layouts later. My support is for delaying the placing of a WIP on an article about a newly released game until three days after its release. 06:35, October 8, 2012 (UTC) (reset)let's consider the 3 days settled. Most participants have voice their support. Yes, we should have this for newly released games, but I strongly feel we should extend this to new features(profile, Nitrome Touchy, IOS). Previews are exempted. Updated to features are also exempted. Mini games are exempted. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 07:53, October 8, 2012 (UTC) :I agree to the "No WIP till 3 days". But, by 3 days, do we mean 72 hours after the creation of the page? -- 14:41, October 8, 2012 (UTC) ::no WIP within 72 hours of the official release on Nitrome blog? It makes sense anyway, Nitrome is in London and uses UTC time. We can have a JavaScript countdown like the one Bluefire used. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 02:38, October 9, 2012 (UTC) Okay, two things to focus on now. 3 days(full days) or 72 hours prohibition on WIP after a release. + Which releases fall under this rule. RSK says for every game release. SQhi says for Main Games only. Super Snot Put as such would not be covered, since it's a pretty small game. TAKESHI says that large previews such as Nitrome Must Die and Icebreaker iOS should also be covered. SQhi further proposes new feature releases and their large previews should also be covered, such as Nitrome's rollout of profiles and Nitrome Touchy. Minor updates/previews and are the likes of Double Edged???? and Icebreaker ResolutionsSQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 03:36, October 9, 2012 (UTC) We're getting somewhere. :When I say "newly game releases", I forgot about the release of new features such as Nitrome Touchy, which I also agree that this rule should apply to. Mini games would have been exempted from this rule, except Nitrome has combined both mini and main games into one tab, so mini games would come under our own definitions now. It would be best to have one straightforward rule so that the answer can be a firm yes or no to the 3 day (72 hours) delay. If a new "mini game" is released, I would assume the game traffic wouldn't be as high, so users wouldn't have to worry about edit conflicts anyway when making their edits. 06:11, October 9, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree to no WIP on a page about a newly released game/feature for 72 hours/3 days. -- 13:21, October 9, 2012 (UTC) :::NOBODY, the question here is whether we should count from the time of release in terms of days or hours. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 13:56, October 9, 2012 (UTC) ::::Hours would be better than days, as someone can always place a WIP on an article after 2 days with the excuse "3 days have past in my time zone". Hours would work better, and using the countdown thing would work well also.-- 14:04, October 9, 2012 (UTC) :::::Yes, hours leave no room for ambiguity. Moreover, no confusing adjustments for time zones. The wiki clock = UTC clock = London clock for Nitrome. We're lucky =P SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 14:10, October 9, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I support having a limit of 72 hours until a user can put a WIP on a page. 17:07, October 9, 2012 (UTC) What the WIP limit covers :::::::Thank you, Takeshi. Settled, 72 hours limit it shall be. Could you also comment on what you think should be covered by this rule. Right now they're Main Games releases, large game previews, new features and their large previews. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 17:14, October 9, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Hmm... I'd say also add lists containing all of an element in a newly released game, such as Interactive Objects (Name of Game) or Hazards (Name of Game). Since those can get quite large and they often get WIPs put on them, I think they should be included. 17:50, October 9, 2012 (UTC) (indent reset)Good job thus far, everyone, let's keep going to pass the first resolution, the 72 hours no WIP rule. We're close to clearing this. All we need to do is to set down what is covered, and then make the countdown no WIP template. A potential issue I foresee we have to iron out is, what happens when Nitrome releases no WIP content while someone has a WIP placed on affected content at that moment in time. Focus first thing first. What is covered. "Main Games releases, large game previews, new features and their large previews" All articles containing content pertaining to these fall under this rule.SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 16:22, October 10, 2012 (UTC) :BUMP Let's keep going people. This has been running on for too long. We're so close to finally closing this issue. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 05:01, October 11, 2012 (UTC) ::I would assume time of release relates to when Nitrome announces it on their blog or on Facebook, is that right? I don't think we can calculate the exact time a game was released, which is why saying 72 hours instead of 3 days might cause some problems for users who wait just after the delay passes to place a WIP on the page. ::I'm afraid I've changed my mind about this rule exempting mini games and extending towards features for the time being. When this thread was opened, the proposal was to only apply this rule to articles about newly released games. That, in itself, is easy to monitor and establish whether a user is allowed to use Template:WIP on the article or not. ::However, when we stir up some exceptions, such as mini games being exempted from this rule, things start to become more wayward, considering Nitrome no longer categorizes their games into "mini games" and "main games" anymore. We will need a clear definition of what characterizes a game a mini game, or it becomes more difficult to enforce the rule. It would be much more easier to enforce the rules if delaying the placing of a WIP for 3 days applied to all games rather than just a portion of games based on our own definitions. In fact, is it a big deal if users can't place a WIP on a page they define a "mini game" for three days' time? If there is lesser traffic on an article, then there is a lesser likeliness of running into an edit conflict, which is pretty much the only reason I've heard about why users add these WIP templates. ::The same goes for features. "New features and their large previews" might be interpreted differently from user to user. Would that mean only new features that have been extravagantly previewed on the Nitrome blog? Ones that have their own website, or not featured but spontaneously released? If we want to make things more easier to enforce (and conclude this forum thread sooner), we need to reduce the number of exceptions and stick with rules that can quickly be answered with a yes or no to whether the 3 day delay applies to that page. 06:33, October 11, 2012 (UTC) :::At the end of the day, when new content is released, many members are eager to add information on it, even if it be a mini game like Super Snot Put or updates from as small as resolutions and as large a preview as Nitrome Touchy. WIP excludes all others except the booker from editing the article and goes against the spirit of collaborative editing. Point to consider. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 10:53, October 11, 2012 (UTC) :::The date of release is to be taken as the official blog posting time on the Nitrome blog. Facebook is eliminated because the way it displays time posted, few seconds ago, 3 hours ago prevent us from easily and effectively putting down a set time. Yes, the time of the posting of the blog post may be a few hours before it becomes live. That's a minor issue anyway. 72 minus a few hours for the delay is still plenty of time for collaborative editing. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 10:53, October 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::In that case, we'll clearly outline that in the rules. At least, from the time of release on the Nitrome blog. But what if Nitrome doesn't announce the game's release until a few days afterwards? Anyways, I guess that's not too big a deal to fuss over, in the spirit of collaborative editing. ::::SQhi, I also can't seem to understand what you're trying to convey here in your "point to consider" post. 06:25, October 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::My point to consider is, WIP reservations even on mini game releases and minor previews are also not desirable. Say when Super Snot Put was released, many users were eager to construct the new articles and sections. In fact this was the reason the page was packed with information so readily. Now imagine(assume) someone reserves the page for 7 days, and creates a near-complete and near-perfect article. All other members are robbed of their chance to contribute significantly to the construction of the article. This situation might arise if we exclude mini games and small previews from the 72 hour rule-- intended to promote collaboration. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 17:33, October 12, 2012 (UTC) The Template (reset indent)So, based on current discussions. No WIP for 72 hours after the blog post announcement time on the Nitrome Blog. Applies to any game release, feature release and previews, to (1) encourage collaborative editing (2) prevent WIP reservations. If the announcement is a few days late, the timer starts from the blog post date and time, and the no WIP rule is enforced from the release up until 72 hours after the blog post time.SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 07:43, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :Okay, I guess we can start creating the template. Just one more scenario to consider. Say on Icebreaker iOS, if NOBODY has a WIP reservation, and during his WIP period Nitrome releases Icebreaker iOS update #5. What should be done then? SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 07:43, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::He should remove it. 12:19, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::How about, the WIP would be replaced with a no WIP template, a message to be left on NOBODY's talk page and a snapshot of the page at that instant to be added into his userspace. This allows him to continue on his great changes in the meantime. The no WIP takes effect straightaway from release and waiting for a user to remove his/her WIP would take too long. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 16:08, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree with the above. -- 16:11, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :We should probably change the colours of the new release template to distinguish the WIP from the new release one. 20:27, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Same. I was thinking of changing the background to the contrasting Colour of green, Red, and yellow to the constrating Colour magenta. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 03:09, October 14, 2012 (UTC) revamped? SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 03:53, October 14, 2012 (UTC) :Hmm...red against orange doesn't exactly stand out. The template's content itself is looking good, though. 00:47, October 15, 2012 (UTC) Looks neat. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 05:00, October 17, 2012 (UTC) : The four characters when placed together looks quite cluttered. Actually I added the boss because of his "imposing" look. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 13:22, October 17, 2012 (UTC) The documentation Added the what to do if there is an WIP, because having it here makes it easily visible. That's an important quality of instructions. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 13:13, October 17, 2012 (UTC) Motion for Closure Phew, finally. I think we have enough discussions to close this super-extended forum. Here are the resolutions. *To promote collaborative editing right after the release/previews of new content, no WIP is allowed within 72 hours of the release time, on pages with content dealing with the release/preview. *The release time is pegged to the official time of release on the Nitrome blog. Even if the blog release is late by a few hours to a few days, this rule takes effect from the time the content first appears to 72 hours after the announcing blog post. *The Wiki Clock is London time and is to be referred to in determining the end time of the block. *This rule applies to all releases big or small, of all kinds(games, platforms, features) so that everyone gets their fair chance to contribute. *Template:noWIP is to be placed during this period. It can be removed after 72 hours. *Should a member have a WIP on an article when new content is released that imposes this rule on that article, the follow actions are to be taken. (1)Template:noWIP to replace the WIP template. (2)Create a snapshot of the page at that instead at User:Username/PAGENAME. (3)Leave a message on the talk page of the affected member. Any more modifications to the template can be settled later. Let the passing begin. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 18:51, October 14, 2012 (UTC) - I agree with all said above. 18:54, October 14, 2012 (UTC) As reviewer of forum and proposer for closure. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 18:56, October 14, 2012 (UTC) I agree to. -- 19:44, October 14, 2012 (UTC) + I hope the WIP problem will be solved soon. 20:02, October 15, 2012 (UTC) This "72 hour" rule applies to previews as well? I thought it only concerned the release of new features and games. 00:46, October 15, 2012 (UTC) R&om, previews were discussed above. =( Imagine if Nitrome Icebreaker iOS preview was just released, and someone immediately WIPed the article. Same problem. SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 14:35, October 15, 2012 (UTC) :I didn't mean that I didn't want it to apply to previews - in fact, I am perfectly fine with previews falling under this rule. I just needed to make sure - sorry, my head is probably somewhere else and failed to read the previews discussion. :I'm sorry, but one thing that does need fixing is that template - the colours just don't seem to go well together and it seems more like a giant flashing obstruction rather than a notice. If you really want the red words to stand out, there will definitely need to be more contrast, as red against that peachy colour makes the two blend in. 06:56, October 16, 2012 (UTC) ::It's okay R&om. Maybe that may have to do with my harmonious design style. Actually, the reason why this template is here is so everyone can chip in to improve it! SQhi'•'(talk)Ruby 08:30, October 16, 2012 (UTC) :::First, I created the template with your code, instead of adding all the code to the pages. I'll edit the template so it looks smaller, simpler and not so "flashing" as R&om said above. :) 12:47, October 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::The template looks much better now, although I think using named parameters might work better for templates that call for three or more parameters. I have added some. One last question I need resolved: will this policy also apply to the Pixel Love Wiki for the "release" of "new" games? 00:30, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::At the moment nope, because we didn't talk about that. Anyway, we could discuss that after finishing first this forum. 15:57, October 18, 2012 (UTC) (reset indent)But this thread is about implementing a WIP policy and if the sister Wikis are connected, then it might seem plausible to apply it to the Pixel Love Wiki, as they are both about factual information rather than fanart. We should address and resolve as many issues as possible to make sure everything gets ironed and sorted out. Since the Pixel Love Wiki is a rather low-traffic Wiki about games outside of Nitrome development, then I suppose it wouldn't apply to Pixel Love Wiki as well. With that in mind, I now support the implementation of the "72 hours rule". 06:53, October 19, 2012 (UTC) '''Request of closure' - All the points are decided, the template is created and ready to be used, and we only need to close this forum topic to change the policies. 19:41, October 18, 2012 (UTC)